Help

Helpdesk

Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

The least harmful new "legal highs" should be made readily available for sale under strictly regulated conditions rather than being immediately banned as happens now, according to a cross-party group of peers.​

Senior police officers told the inquiry into the new psychoactive synthetic drugs, which are appearing in Britain at the rate of more than one a week, that the existing criminal sanctions for drug users is doing nothing to reduce their use.​

Chief constable Tim Hollis, who chairs the Association of Chief Police Officers drugs committee, said the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was not well positioned to deal with the more complex drugs scene which now exists in Britain.​

"The solution to the particular challenges of legal highs does not lie in adding inexorably to the list of illicit substances," said Hollis. The police say the speed at which new substances are being produced and made available and marketed means existing laws are being overtaken. They said that party invitations circulating on smart phones now include a weblink to a supplier of legal highs.​

The report published on Monday by the House of Lords all-party parliamentary group on drug policy reform, chaired by the crossbench peer, Baroness Meacher, says it would be far more effective to adopt a New Zealand initiative and ask trading standards officers to test and regulate the supply of low-risk legal highs.​

"Under these controls suppliers would, as is planned in New Zealand, be limited to certain outlets and required to label their product with a clear description of its contents, its risks and the maximum advisable dose. The supplier would also be responsible for assuring that their product causes only limited harms," says their report adding that the system would encourage young people to avoid the unknown and therefore more dangerous alternatives. Sales to minors and advertising would be banned.​

The inquiry group which includes Conservatives Lord Mancroft and Lord Norton, and crossbenchers, Baroness Stern and Lord Cobbold, say the current system of 12-month temporary banning orders to control each new legal high while the government's drug experts establish how dangerous they are does little to protect users.​

The first legal highs to be banned in Britain were mephedrone, known as "miaow miaow" and methoxetamine, known as "mexxy", which largely imitate the effects of amphetamines and ketamine. They usually come in the form of 1kg packets of white powder produced most often in China and India and sold through online head shops.​

The peers said they welcomed the fact that the temporary banning orders do not make it a criminal offence to possess and use the substances during that period, saying it is the first time since 1971 that any government has banned the supply of a drug while not criminalising its possession and use.​

At present the ban is likely to be made permanent after 12 months and possession made illegal.​

"The greatest risk to young people from new psychoactive substances derives from the absence of reliable information about the contents and strength of each substance and its effects both short and long term," says the report.​

"The name of the substance may tell a user little about its contents, and the contents may change from week to week. The more substances are banned the more are created and the greater uncertainties for consumers."​

They say this is the greatest risk posed by legal highs. The report cites the examples of "Ivory Wave" which contained three different substances over an 18-month period and "Bubble" which is widely used in the north-west and whose content varies from week to week but many people assume it is a single drug.​

One leading toxicologist, Dr John Ramsey, said the temporary banning orders were making the situation worse as they were driving the development of yet more compounds.​

"As long as large amounts of money can be made selling untreated chemicals, for which there is a market of largely young people willing to risk using them as drugs, and a chemical industry willing to supply the chemicals, the situation is unlikely to improve."​

Baroness Meacher said the rapid emergence of legal highs demonstrated the need to reform UK drug policy: "The Misuse of Drugs Act is counter-productive in attempting to reduce drugaddiction and other drug harms to young people."​

• This article was amended on Monday 14 January 2013. It originally said mephedrone and methoxetamine largely imitate the effects of cannabis, which was inaccurate. ​

Comments

Sort Comments By

While I doubt that we will see the UK government showing enough balls to do this, the plan is very wise. There are various research chemicals which have been used by a mass of users, without significant incidents. The bans of these research chemicals have caused new untested and frequently dangerous research chemicals to be invented, produced and marketed and hospitalisations to occur.
Thus bans of research chemicals do not protect public health.

There's always going to be drug related deaths because people get carried away and mix substances or take too much, but at least if the production and supply are being watched over / controlled to similar standards that pharmaceutical companies adhere to, it would surely vastly reduce the frequency and severity of drug related incidents.

Personally I think the government (all governments) need to go further, take the power from underground chemists and gangs. Control production, tax everything and use the money to improve the dire state of drug rehabilitation and education.

The profit from all that tax, plus the reduced stress on the national health service would make a huge difference. Oh and less funds wasted on keeping people locked up, can't forget that huge chunk 'o cheddar!

There are various research chemicals which have been used by a mass of users, without significant incidents.

Click to expand...

This is nonetheless a short term evaluation of their harm potential. We cannot say for sure whether users of these novel drugs will suffer in the longer term as a result of unforseen side effects, so there is still an uncalculated risk involved. If they're going to decriminalize anything then it'd make more sense to go with substances with a longer and better documented history of use such as ketamine, LSD and MDMA. These drugs are by no means perfectly safe either, but we understand them far better than substances that have been in existence for less than a decade, and in some cases less than a couple of years.

The most interesting thing about the current drug debate in the UK is how the press is reporting it.

The OP is using a Guardian article, but I've noticed that even the Daily Mail, usually seen as the most sensationalistic of all newspapers, is taking a more open-minded stance towards decriminalisation and even legalisation of some or all illicit drugs. A few years ago, most journalists would have reported these proposals as if they were absurd and that any politician who endorsed them was one step up from someone who sells heroin to schoolchildren. But that has changed.

I'm actually becoming quite optimistic about the future of drug laws in Britain. It feels as if the days of people having to prove that they are "tough on drugs" are coming to an end. Politicians can propose legalisation without having to worry about being crucified in the press. There's still a long, long way to go and much will rely on how cannabis legalisation in Colorado and Washington works out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the drug war were effectively over in the UK by 2020.

The sun are still holding the sensationalisation flag though. Not as bad one one might expect but I did read an article about this entitled "Make crack and heroin legal in the UK". Gotta love the sun. At least they have page 3 girls. Or at least they did last time I was over there.

There is a really good song by Cock Sparrer called 'the sun says' worth checking out for the English among us.

'The sun says, the sun says, we're gonna look after you.
The sun says , the sun says, So it must be true.' - Cock Sparrer